Forum:Notability
I will state this upfront. Nothing that comes out of this thread is official policy. I am just testing the waters a little bit before forming an RFC. There are two ways to determine what content should be included on the wiki. They are width and depth. We have already determined width through our fanon policies and c&c. Depth is essentially determining how far we go in detail. This is done through determining whether a subject is notable enough for an article. As indicated by the current fruit article and some of the previous rfd's we as a community need to decide just how deep into the Metroid series we want to go. How much detail? When is a subject not notable enough? Now in order to create an RFC, I must already have an idea of what the policy is. Problem is, I'm not exactly sure yet. Now what I am thinking is that we should find a way to determine the notability of an article. Also, what do we do with the information about subjects that don't merit articles? Obviously, we aren't creating a list like the List of cameos and crossovers, but in what articles should we put the information in about those subjects? If at all. Play around with this idea as much as you want. Don't feel limited in how we answer this. I will create an official RFC based on suggestions. There is no time limit either. I'll keep suggestions open for a minimum of 2 weeks. And please, keep things nice people and try to put your feelings aside. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 02:06, June 12, 2011 (UTC) Regarding what to do with the information: many of the articles that we think are redundant are articles on real-world subjects which have no specific significance in the Metroid series other than the significance they have in real life, such as bees, Bigfoot, and of course Fruit. For these articles, I would suggest simply linking to the relevant Wikipedia page, which (if Wikipedia is doing its job) will contain basically the same information. These are different from things like water or the cow, which, although they exist in the real world, play a very ''different role in ''Metroid. That covers most of the contentious pages, but there are some (is the "large lava pit arena" still around?) that don't exist in the real world but merely restate information found in other articles (information that is in fact relevant to the article in question. If I were to put all of Samus Aran's information in the Chozo article to try and get the page deleted, that would of course be ridiculous). These should also be removed, I think, and there is no worry about where to put the content- the very definition of such a redundant article is that the content exists somewhere else. Sometimes if an article is long (say, larger than a page) I would be happy to see valid articles made of individual sections (i.e. "Biography Of Ridley" and so forth)- although the information can be put in another article, there is also a very good reason to remove that information from the article in question- namely, avoiding massive walls of text. I think that covers everything I have to say. "My name is [[User:AdmiralSakai|'AdmiralSakai']], and I approve this message." 13:18, June 12, 2011 (UTC)]] :Last night I had a crazy epiphany type thing inspired by a suggestion from a Metroidover user on the Fruit RFD to move some of the information to the Biosphere article (The Room Lists came from a similar process, being justified by the Phendrana Shorelines article). I think should go in more detail about minor plants, architecture, landscape, etc. on the region pages (like Norfair) and on the room pages. We can put information about minor plants, structures, etc. there. Sorta like a nature documentary or something for areas on other planets. The reader would be able to have a better understanding of the ecosystem by having the variety of plants and creatures briefly described for them. Obviously, there shouldn't be any speculation. Not entirely revelant to notability, but gives a place for various minor things. :I agree with what you said most of the real world article stuff that is briefly mentioned. :The policy NEEDS to be flexible and adaptible. If something that is previously considered minor later becomes article worthy, it should be allowed an article. You think that would be common sense, but it is a precaution in case somebody decides to use the rule in ways it isn't intended to. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 19:04, June 12, 2011 (UTC) :Excellent idea on the location articles. And I always sort of assumed that whenever new information became available, people would reevaluate the relevant articles of their own accord. "My name is [[User:AdmiralSakai|'AdmiralSakai']], and I approve this message." 13:19, June 13, 2011 (UTC) ::Articles that are just a paragraph that say "this is that. It does that. In appears in that. The End" are not necessary. On other wikis I've worked with, we combine articles like this with other articles like it or related bigger ones to make bigger ones that are more relevant and get more traffic. The fruit, for example, can easily be placed in another, related article. Also, articles like this should not exist. Doctor 03:17, June 19, 2011 (UTC) Screw an RfC, just vote here. There's no need for a policy limiting what people can and cannot create. You bubbleheads just don't see what bureaucracy should be. Piratehunter is not crazy or sick minded or anything! --[[User:RoyboyX|'Р'o'й'б'o'й'X']] (Talk • • UN) 21:08, June 20, 2011 (UTC) Anyway, yes, I agree with the scenery idea, but Fruit was named, given a backstory and a feature of gameplay, cutscene and background. --[[User:RoyboyX|'Р'o'й'б'o'й'X']] (Talk • • UN) 21:10, June 20, 2011 (UTC) :"There's no need for a policy limiting what people can and cannot create." REMEMBUH ME?!? :Anyways, I didn't undelete it when you asked because I was unsure. Its an article on a fruit. Not even the species of plant. And I didn't want any crap like "Sap Sac is also a fruit but not the same fruit". That is stupid, and anybody who does that needs to be shot. Like the trivia I removed. :If not a policy, we can work out a general agreement here so there wouldn't be any issues. AND NO GOING AHEAD AND DELETING/UNDELETING STUFF. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 21:21, June 20, 2011 (UTC) This was a fruit in Metroid. Metroid. C&C is irrelevant, because those are references to Metroid and not actual Metroid stuff. Need I say why I had Fruit restored yet again? Yeah, that trivia was stupid, but we all make mistakes. Generally, when I do something, I only do it once and never again, or not often. --[[User:RoyboyX|'Р'o'й'б'o'й'X']] (Talk • • UN) 21:32, June 20, 2011 (UTC) :I only brought up C&C because it fit the description hillariously well. :About why you had Fruit restored, it was because you were too impatient to have a nice discussion on the subject. And for the record, I was holding out on deleting it until YOU asked for it to be deleted. >_> :I know, but I've seen that on other wikis too and thats what those kind of articles tend to encourage. :What about articles like Epidermis? Those kinds of articles cover various subjects that are mostly unrelated except for having mentions of a real life object. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 21:47, June 20, 2011 (UTC) I had it restored because concept art of the Breeding Room states that it is little birdie's favorite food. The concept art of the actual little birdie might just tell us if he was eating a fruit as I see him devoruing something other than the Kihunter honey. --[[User:RoyboyX|'Р'o'й'б'o'й'X']] (Talk • • UN) 22:00, June 20, 2011 (UTC) :I understood that the first TWO times. What I didn't understand was why you had to go around me to do it. I was unsure. Undecided. You are supposed to discuss with the deleting admin. Otherwise you have a delete/undelete war. :Anyways, personally I don't think we need the brief mentions like Santa. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 22:06, June 20, 2011 (UTC) Because maybe I personally think that Piratehunter is the only person capable of being a bureaucrat here, and he's someone I trust. Currently the two of you are the only ones here, and you won't let me join you. He will, but you won't. --[[User:RoyboyX|'Р'o'й'б'o'й'X']] (Talk • • UN) 22:15, June 20, 2011 (UTC) :Excuse me. And what do you mean by join you? If you mean THAT, then I will explain again why I said no. :And please tell me what quality renders me incapable of being a bureaucrat. As long as it is constructive criticism, I will listen. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 22:29, June 20, 2011 (UTC) It is not constructive, so I will not say it. And by join you, I have been planning for some time to, after the expiry date of the month ban from January, become an admin and bureaucrat and further kill off everything to do ;). Remember when you thought I wanted to get rid of you because I wanted to be an admin again? Well, I'd like to be one again, but I'm used to simple patrolling, although it would be nice to kill certain things such as unused files myself, as certain other administrators... *looks in direction of person to nominate fruit for deletion, which is not you, MG* ...have a poor taste in photography. --[[User:RoyboyX|'Р'o'й'б'o'й'X']] (Talk • • UN) 22:34, June 20, 2011 (UTC) :Yo. This forum is supposed to be about what deserves an article, and not wether or not certain users are fit for adminship. Thank you. Doctor 22:48, June 20, 2011 (UTC) ::(EDIT CONFLICT)''Roy, I've probably said this before, but I'll repeat it now. Please take this constructively. You have problems communicating with people. Especially when it comes to respecting the judgement of those who disagree with you. Assuming good faith. As an admin, you do a lot of communicating. Especially with the people who do things the way you don't want them to. We'll see when you start to show improvement in this area. But for now, you have yet to show respect for my judgement even. :Anyways, back on topic. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 22:56, June 20, 2011 (UTC) Notability should be just that, is it notable. Things like fruit aren't notable at all. I mean, only the most hardcore fans are gonna pick something like that out. But this is a metroid database, so I understand the need to mention it. The need to ''mention it. I don't get why it deserves it's own article, when other things don't. Like the cameos & crossovers list. If a measly fruit gets an article, why doesn't a Komayoto get one? Now the cameos and crossovers list was probably a could thing in the wikis interest, so wouldn't deleting minor articles and putting them in other articles also be good? Even if fruit has a backstory, why can't the backstory just be included in little birdie's article? Half of the backstory is about little birdie! So I agree with merging minor articles into larger articles, and linking irrelevant articles to wikipedia. I really hate the irrelevant ones. And who was it that said that this database should have every little mention of things in the metroid universe because it's a metroid database? That's just stupid. You wouldn't create an article for air and say "Samus breathes air in the metroid games". Would you? I think, more than anything else, this shouldn't be called an RfC for notability. It should be called an RfC for common sense. C'mon people. Liquid Fear. Drink up! 17:55, June 21, 2011 (UTC) Pretty much everything that has been said by the IP and Liquid Fear sums up my beliefs for notability. Brief mentions of small topics like Fruit don't need an article of their own, but they could have a section of their own on a larger page. That scenery idea is great, and it would certainly help with articles like that one ULF about the clam (I forget the number, but it's the last one so far) and more minor flora/fauna details. In addition, I would like to say that some real-world articles are just not necessary. Bee, Bigfoot, and Santa Claus are examples of unnecessary articles. Why? Because they are used as comparisons. Bee was used several times to describe how a species lived (Pirates live like bees, Nightbarbs attack and die like bees, etc.). Bigfoot and Santa were used by a trooper when he(?) was saying he didn't believe Samus was real, as the others can't be proven that they exist (little kids might argue about that with Santa :) ) and so neither could Samus (he even said it was hard for him to believe Samus destroyed a Pirate base). However, some real-world articles, like Water and Lava, deserve an article because they actually appear physically in several games, serve as major obsticles, provide new environments that exhibit new creatures, and often affect game progression. Of course, exceptions can always be made if necessary. That's what I believe should be defined as "notable or not." тħε ξχτėямíиαłσřTalk/ 17:31, July 29, 2011 (UTC) Hear, hear! "My name is [[User:AdmiralSakai|'AdmiralSakai']], and I approve this message." 17:45, July 29, 2011 (UTC) :I agree with The Exterminator, but I also believe there is another way to determine notability. If you have an article idea, just stop and think about it before you create it. If it's going to be no more than about three sentences long with maybe an image and some trivia without leaving the relevance of Metroid (like Santa Claus, Bee, Bigfoot, and Fruit) it doesn't need to be an article, plain and simple. Water and Lava are OK because they actually contain sections of relevant information within the relevance of Metroid. The Exterminator's definition of relevant information is good, but there can be situations where objects appear in several games and slightly affect game progression, but their articles don't turn out to be longer than a paragraph (though I am aware that Ex did mention "exceptions" in his post). I believe we should mention both ideas (article length, and reference vs. in-game) in a notability policy, just to allow for all types of situations. DoctorPain99 (talk • • • • ) 18:44, July 29, 2011 (UTC) ::@Exterminator: SANTA IS REAL! WHO ELSE ATE MY COOKIES, IF NOT SANTA? The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 00:21, July 30, 2011 (UTC) @Admiral: Thanks. @MarioGalaxy: The Cookie Monster, silly! тħε ξχτėямíиαłσřTalk/ 03:24, July 30, 2011 (UTC) :Lies... D: :Now, the problem I see with DP's suggestion is that some things should get articles, but are still just a paragraph or so (like Gronkat). Of course, potential length in the future should also be considered (as in, what if they refered to it in a later game). And of course, with things like fruit, it is highly unlikely they will be brought back, and we wouldn't be sure it was the same one even if it was. Now, Gronkats have a chance of being mentioned again especially considering it has a distinct name. And articles like Epidermis and carbon would be considered notable by your method, but actually aren't really notable at all. I can't remember if this was suggested already or not, but articles should be more or less about one subject with some exceptions. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 16:07, July 30, 2011 (UTC) :A partial solution to this problem is twofold- some subjects (such as the Horus Rebellion I just fleshed out) contain notable gaps in their information, and so I think it's important to say what is unknown and sometimes float explanations. That causes these articles to grow. The other side consists of articles such as the large lava pit arena that look volumous, but when you actually read the thing 90% of it is quoted form other places and it contains effectively no original work. So length is a good indicator, provided that the article is not otherwise flawed- provided that it contains a full, complete summary of what we do (and don't) know, and that we disregard excessive quoted or redundant material. "My name is [[User:AdmiralSakai|'AdmiralSakai']], and I approve this message." 16:29, July 30, 2011 (UTC) ::@MG2433g5: The are going to be exceptions to any rule, so that's why I suggest combining my idea with The Exterminator's and word it in a way that accounts for all situations. DoctorPain99 (talk • • • • ) 17:09, July 30, 2011 (UTC) MG. That was the most unprofessional reply. I have. Ever. Seen. I don't need to say my opinions on the matter again. It will only cause more grief for all of us. Epidermis, Carbon and the like are stupid, yes, but Fruit and Left hand are both subjects that are seen in Metroid other than a vague description. I don't need to say my arguments for Fruit again, and left hand is used by Samus quite often. --[[User:RoyboyX|'रॉ'यल'ड़'काए'क्स']] (Talk • • UN) 15:47, August 1, 2011 (UTC) :It gets to the point though. Besides, it's just a personal request. It's not an official warning or anything. *shrugs* :Everybody happy? Sort of? If so, I'll start turning this into something that can be used as an RfC. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 16:27, August 1, 2011 (UTC) :Please do. Maybe that way we'll also get some attention on extant RfCs that have been abandoned for the better part of a year... "My name is [[User:AdmiralSakai|'AdmiralSakai']], and I approve this message." 16:37, August 1, 2011 (UTC)